kicker rule change discussion

This is an article of the German sports magazine kicker, which will be continued next week. Title is “Thinking to end, Mr. Strigel…”. Content description: “Referee decisions are discussed week after week. Many demand: change the rules! DFB referee instructor Eugen Strigel says what this would mean for soccer”. The topics today (I added my view under each passage):


HAND: SUCH A GOAL MAY NOT COUNT
PROBLEM: giant excitement was caused by the goal of 1860 forward Markus Schroth [a defender wanted to clear with a long ball, was attacked by Schroth who got the ball against his hand in the forward movement – and from there into the goal. The goal was counted]. The intention-discussion is everlasting.
DEMAND: Hand is hand and has to be whistled.
EUGEN STRIGEL: For the referees this surely would be easier. But nobody can be punished for something he can’t be blamed for. Is a player on the goal line shot against his hand from short distance, he had to be sent off for avoiding a clear goal chance. Soccer players often try to hit the opponent with the ball to get a corner kick or a throw-in. I think after a rule change it would be tried to shoot against the opponents hand in the box to get a penalty kick.
KICKER: Schroth’s goal is a seldom exception. Even though the discussion “intention or not” will never end, a rule change doesn’t make sense.
MY VIEW: this rule can be modified. You can establish a rule saying ‘hand ball has to be whistled in any case. When avoiding a clear goal chance on the line, the player has to be sent off if the hand ball was intentional; i.e. for the personal punishment take the old intention rule, but for team punishment whistle every hand ball except for the situation when an opponent aimed to hit the hand’. Cause it is and stays annoying if a goal is avoided or scored also by an unintentional hand ball. Unlike kicker claims, this happens quite often, also hand balls in the box.



PASSIVE OFFSIDE: GET RID OFF IT
PROBLEM: often it is very difficult to evaluate whether an offside position is active or passive.
DEMAND: whistle when a player is in offside position
EUGEN STRIGEL: The passive offside always existed, it was just modified throughout the years. At the beginning of the 80s Hamburg under Ernst Happel, AC Milan or the national team of Belgium almost had perfect offside traps, the game got unattractive. Without passive offside moves had to be stopped and goals annulled, even if a player doesn’t intervene. Again attractiveness would get lost. And: narrow decision will continue to exist.
KICKER: Passive offside makes sense if the player isn’t involved in the action and also doesn’t irritate the opponent.
MY VIEW: I’d prefer a new modification of the rule saying that in the box every offside position is active.



TIME PENALTY: GOOD FOR HEATED ATMOSPHERE
PROBLEM: Red for Hannover’s Dame Diouf, but only yellow for Oliver Kahn. An uneven treatment for similar actions which both weren’t able to cause injuries.
DEMAND: Introduce a time penalty.
EUGEN STRIGEL: FIFA once tested the rule in DFB’s amateur section. At first all were against the introduction, then everyone protested when it was abandoned. I think it is a good solution as the consequences are just short termed. A referee of course knows about the consequences if he’s ejecting a player completely.
KICKER: The time penalty proved itself, but the yellow-red ejection wasn’t introduced at that time. Both together is too much.
MY VIEW: I remember the time penalty in D3 back then and it was horrible. As kicker says, it quasi was today’s yellow-red ejection, which proved itself and has a much bigger effect. Back then a) the players knew that they’d only be out for ten minutes and so the game was much harder, and b) the referees often only made use of the time penalty to avoid an ejection even in situations, in which this was necessary



TWO REFEREES: TWO SEE MORE THAN ONE
PROBLEM: Often the referees suffer under wrong decisions of the assistants.
DEMAND: Two referees.
EUGEN STRIGEL: This mode was tried in the Italian cup competition two years ago. FIFA considered this to be failed and because of that gave more responsibility to the assistants. Three people are enough to cover the whole space. Two referees on the pitch also means: two different ways of whistling.
KICKER: When trying in Italy, the referees were allowed to run over whole pitch. FIFA should try again by instructing one referee for one half of the pitch only.
MY VIEW: Exactly kicker’s view. FIFA proved to be wrong as giving more responsibility to the assistant only caused more problems. Giving one side to a referee means less running and more concentration and a better overview. Two referees proved to be good in hockey and basketball as well.



LAST PLAYER FOULING: NO EJECTION
PROBLEM: Even the Dutch legend Marco van Basten appeared in the public discussion and supported his old arch rival Jürgen Kohler and said that he may not have been ejected in the UEFA Cup final.
DEMAND: Abandon the ejection for fouls of the last player
EUGEN STRIGEL: The red card was introduced as the players were fouling rather harmless, but avoided clear goal chances for the attacker. By getting rid off the ejection we’d soon be back in the old times. Attractiveness and number of goals would get less. Personally I favour a different variation: no red for fouling as last player, but penalty kick no matter where the foul happened.
KICKER: Even when the frightening effect of the ejection gets lost: this idea should be realised as it replaces the goal chance one on one.
MY VIEW: This is my idea since years: personal punishment depending on the foul and team punishment penalty kick. Completely abandoning an ejection and no penalty kick would be horrible. I still remember a cup game of my local team which was D3 back then against Bundesliga team Stuttgart. The score was 0-0 close to the end and Stuttgart’s goalie slipped while trying to do a long ball. Our forward picked up the ball about forty meter to the empty net and a defender came from behind holding him – consequence: yellow and free kick, how adequate. Of course this player who just was booked scored the game winner in the overtime…



BODY CONTACT: IMMEDIATE PENALTY KICK
PROBLEM: Marco van Basten said: mainly annoying is holding in the box after standard situations.
DEMAND: any body contact in the box must be penalty kick
EUGEN STRIGEL: This would be untypical for soccer, in which fight, passion and body contact belong to the main elements. Disallowing it means changing the character of the game. We don’t want it though referees would have it much easier. Holding was no real topic ten years ago, but got really bad today and often is abused by the forwards. This is making it very difficult for the referees who has to control six to ten duels in a standard situation. Being strict is the only way to solve it.
KICKER: Fashion fouls as holding only vanish by punishments. Referees, sports courts and media are responsible here. Cause when allegedly wrong decisions are criticised in the public, the players are getting a wrong alibi.
MY VIEW: Don’t know. Annoying is the different way of whistling. Some are whistling body contact, some not. I doubt that whistling more would help as in the stadium it is very annoying when every standard situation is whistled. No clue how to solve it.